SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1059

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
M/s. Stemcyte India Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 3816-3817 of 2025
Decided On : 14-07-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Krishnamohan K., AOR Ms. Dania Nayyar, Adv. Ms. Meetika Baghel, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.C. Bharti, Adv.

Services by stem cell banks qualifying as healthcare are exempt from service tax under Notification No. 25/2012-ST, and extended limitation periods require proof of intent to evade tax.

Headnote:(A) Central Excise Act, 1944 - Finance Act, 1994 - Service Tax Notification No. 25/2012-ST - Service Tax Notification No. 4/2014-ST - Services of stem cell banks - Scope of 'Healthcare Services' exemption - CESTAT upheld orders requiring payment of service tax, stating services provided by the appellant, which involved the processing and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, did not fall under 'Healthcare Services' exemption criteria; however, the court found the appellant's activities met the definition of 'Healthcare Services' as they relate to treatment, diagnosis, and care, and thus qualified for exemption. (Para 13)

(B) Limitation period - The court ruled that the extended period of limitation invoked by the department for demand of service tax was unjustified given the lack of evidence of intent to evade tax, as the appellant believed their services were exempt. Applicable principles require that for the extended period, there must be proof of fraud or suppression of facts, which the department failed to demonstrate. (Paras 9.3, 9.4)

(C) Penalties - The imposition of penalties under various sections was found unwarranted as the appellant acted on a bona fide belief regarding the exemption status of their services. The court emphasized that penalties should not be imposed on genuine taxpayers. (Paras 13.1, 13.2)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a joint venture in stem cell banking, contested the CESTAT's ruling on service tax following their activities during a specified period. The Ministry of Health had earlier stated that these services should qualify for exemption, but conflicting interpretations led to the contention of service tax liability.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the appellant's services fell within the ambit of healthcare services and thus should not be liable for service tax during the disputed period.

Issues: The central issues were whether the services provided by the appellant constituted 'Healthcare Services' under the relevant notifications and if the department's extended limitation period to issue a show-cause notice was valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's reasoning confirmed that the services significantly contributed to healthcare and were, therefore, exempt from tax. It also underscored the necessity of evidence to invoke extended limitation, which was absent in this case.

Result: Appeals allowed; refund of deposited service tax ordered.

Table of Content
1. appellant's appeal and factual background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments from both parties regarding service tax liability. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on the nature of services provided. (Para 5 , 6)
4. discussion on the limitation period and applicable law. (Para 7 , 9)
5. legal reasoning surrounding tax liability and exemptions (Para 8)
6. court's ruling on the applicability of exemptions. (Para 10)
7. final decision and comments on penalties imposed. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
8. final ruling on service tax liability (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant/assessee challenging the common Final Order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad1 [For short “CESTAT”] in Service Tax Appeal Nos. 12168/2018 and 11738/2016. By the impugned order, the CESTAT rejected the appeals filed by the appellant and upheld the orders passed by the lower authorities. In doing so, it held that the services of enrolment, collection, processing, and storage of umbilical cord blood stem cells, provided by the appellant during the period from 01.07.2012 to 16.02.2014, do not fall within the scope of “Healthcare Services.” Consequently, the appellant was held liable to pay service tax on the said services along with interest and penalties.

2. The basic facts of the case, as projected by the appellant, are as follows:

2.1. The appellant is a joint venture company of M/s. Stemcyte Inc., USA, M/s. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd., and M/s. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., established in 2008. It is engaged in the collection, processing, testing, and storage of umbilical cord blood units and their therapeutic application. The appellant is a member of the Association of Stem Cell Banks of India.

2.2. On 27.12.2011, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, issued notification No. GSR 899(E) notifying the Drugs and Cosmetics (3rd Amendment) Rules, 2011. Under these rules, cord blood banks were required to obtain registration. Part XII-D of the Rules set out detailed requirements relating to the collection, processing, testing, and release of umbilical cord blood-derived stem cells.

2.3. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, issued Notification No. 25/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012, which provided a consolidated list of services exempt from service tax. Under Serial No. 2 of the said notification “Healthcare Services” were exempted. This notification superseded the earlier Notification No. 12/2012-Service Tax dated 17.03.2012. Accordingly, with effect from 01.07.2012, the negative list regime of service tax was introduced, rendering all services taxable unless specifically included in the in the negative list or expressly exempted otherwise.

2.4. On 21.09.2012, the Association of Stem Cell Banks of India submitted a representation to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, seeking clarification on whether the services rendered by stem cell banks qualified as “Healthcare Services.” In response, the Ministry, after consultation with the National AIDS Control Organization, issued an Office Memorandum dated 22.05.2013, clarifying that the services rendered by stem cell banks are part of “Healthcare Services” and may be considered for exemption from service tax.

2.5. On 24.10.2013, the appellant obtained Service Tax Registration No. AALCS7174BSD001 under the category “healthcare services by clinical establishment, health check-up/diagnosis, etc.” from the Central Board of Excise and Customs.

2.6. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III, issued a letter dated 02.12.2013 to the appellant requiring them to submit documents relating to the services provided by it. The appellant submitted the requested documents on 30.12.2013.

2.7. Thereafter, a search was conducted at the appellant’s premises on 06.01.2014, during which, statements were recorded and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top